Search for scalar bottom quark pair production with the ATLAS detector in pp collisions at √s=7TeV

(1)

Search for Scalar Bottom Quark Pair Production with the ATLAS Detector in pp Collisions at ffiffiffi

p s

¼ 7 TeV

G. Aad et al.*

(ATLAS Collaboration)

(Received 16 December 2011; published 2 May 2012)

The results of a search for pair production of the scalar partners of bottom quarks in 2:05 fb¹ofpp collisions at ffiffiffi

ps

¼ 7 TeV using the ATLAS experiment are reported. Scalar bottom quarks are searched for in events with large missing transverse momentum and two jets in the final state, where both jets are identified as originating from a bottom quark. In an R-parity conserving minimal supersymmetric scenario, assuming that the scalar bottom quark decays exclusively into a bottom quark and a neutralino, 95% confidence-level upper limits are obtained in the ~b1 ~⁰₁mass plane such that for neutralino masses below 60 GeV scalar bottom masses up to 390 GeV are excluded.

DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.181802 PACS numbers: 14.80.Ly, 12.60.Jv, 13.85.Rm

Supersymmetry (SUSY) [1–9] is a theory that provides an extension of the standard model (SM) and naturally resolves the hierarchy problem by introducing supersymmetric partners of the known bosons and fermions. In the framework of a generic R-parity conserving minimal supersymmetric extension of the SM, the MSSM, SUSY particles are produced in pairs and the lightest supersymmetric particle is stable, providing a possible candidate for dark matter. The scalar partners of right-handed and left-handed quarks (squarks) can mix to form two mass eigenstates. In a large variety of models, the lightest supersymmetric particle is the lightest neutralino (~⁰₁) and the mass of the lightest scalar bottom quark eigenstate (sbottom, ~b1) can be significantly lower than the other squark masses. Consequently, ~b₁ could be produced with large cross sections at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). In this Letter, a search for direct sbottom pair production is pre- sented, assuming a SUSY particle mass hierarchy such that the sbottom decays exclusively into a b quark and a ~⁰₁ ( ~b₁! b~⁰₁). The expected signal is characterized by the presence of two jets originating from the hadronization of theb quarks and missing transverse momentum—its magnitude is referred to as E^miss_T in the following—resulting from the undetected neutralinos. Results of searches for direct sbottom production have been previously reported by the Tevatron [10,11] and LEP [12] experiments. The search described here extends these results using 2:05 fb¹ of 7 TeV pp collision data recorded by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC.

The ATLAS detector [13] consists of inner tracking devices surrounded by a superconducting solenoid,

lectromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters, and a muon spectrometer with a toroidal magnetic field. The inner detector, in combination with the 2 T field from the solenoid, provides precision tracking of charged particles for jj < 2:5 [14]. It consists of a silicon pixel detector, a silicon strip detector, and a straw tube tracker that also provides transition radiation measurements for electron identification. The calorimeter system covers the pseudor- apidity rangejj < 4:9. It is composed of sampling calorimeters with either liquid argon or scintillating tiles as the active media. The muon spectrometer has separate trigger and high-precision tracking chambers which provide muon identification and measurement forjj < 2:7.

This search uses data recorded between March and August 2011 at the LHC. After the application of beam, detector, and data quality requirements, the data set corresponds to a total integrated luminosity of 2:05 0:08 fb¹ [15,16]. The data are selected with a three-level trigger system that requires a high transverse momentum (p_T) jet and missing transverse momentum [17]. Events are required to have a reconstructed primary vertex associated with five or more tracks, consistent with the beam spot position.

Jets are reconstructed offline from three-dimensional topological calorimeter energy clusters by using the anti-k_t jet algorithm [18,19] with a radius parameter of 0.4. The measured jet energy is corrected for inhomogene- ities and for the noncompensating nature of the calorimeter by usingp_T- and-dependent correction factors ([20] and references therein). Only jet candidates withp_T> 20 GeV within jj < 2:8 are retained. During the data-taking pe- riod, a localized electronics failure in the liquid argon barrel calorimeter created an inactive region in the second and third calorimeter layers ( ’ 1:4 0:2) in which on average 30% of the incident jet energy is not measured. If either of the two selected leading jets fall in this region the event is rejected. The loss in signal acceptance is smaller than 10% for the models considered.

*Full author list given at the end of the article.

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

(2)

Electron candidates are required to havep_T> 20 GeV, jj < 2:47, and satisfy the ‘‘medium’’ selection criteria reported in [21]. Muon candidates are required to have p_T> 10 GeV, jj < 2:4 and are identified as a match between an extrapolated inner detector track and one or more track segments in the muon spectrometer. Additional requirements are applied to electron and muon candidates when defining lepton (‘ ¼ e, ) control regions. In this case, electrons must havep_T> 25 GeV, pass the ‘‘tight’’

selection criteria in [21] and be isolated—thep_T sum of tracks within a cone in the (, ) plane of radius R ¼ 0:2 around the candidate, p_T, must be less than 10% of the electronp_T. Muons must havep_T> 25 GeV, longitudinal and transverse impact parameter within 1 mm and 0.2 mm of the primary vertex, respectively, and pT< 1:8 GeV.

Following the object reconstruction described above, over- laps between jet candidates and electrons or muons are resolved. Any jet within a distance R ¼ 0:2 of a

‘‘medium’’ electron candidate is discarded. Any remaining lepton within R ¼ 0:4 of a jet is discarded.

The calculation ofE^miss_T is based on the magnitude of the vectorial sum of thep_Tof the reconstructed jets (with pT> 20 and jj < 4:5), leptons—including nonisolated muons—and the calorimeter clusters not belonging to reconstructed objects [22].

Events must pass basic quality criteria against detector noise and noncollision backgrounds and are selected with at least one jet withpT> 130 GeV and E^miss_T > 130 GeV to ensure full trigger efficiency, and one additional jet with p_T> 50 GeV. Both jets are required to be associated to the primary interaction and to originate from ab quark using a tagging algorithm that exploits both impact parameter and secondary vertex information. Jets are tagged forjj < 2:5 and the parameters of the algorithm are chosen such that a tagging efficiency of 60%, 10%, and<1% is achieved for b jets, c jets, and light flavor or gluon jets, respectively, in ttevents in Monte Carlo (MC) simulation [23]. Events with identified electron or muon candidates or additional jets withpT> 50 GeV are vetoed to exploit the topology of the addressed signal. The multijet background contribution with large E^miss_T , due to the mismeasurement of the jet energies in the calorimeters or to neutrino production in heavy quark decays, is suppressed by requiring the small- est azimuthal separation between the E^miss_T direction and any of the two leading jets, min, to be above 0.4. If a third jet with 30 < p_T< 50 GeV is found in the event, its azimuthal separation with the E^miss_T must be above 0.2, where jets withpT below 30 GeV are not used due to the large expected contribution from multiple interactions. In addition, the ratio ofE^miss_T to the scalar sum ofE^miss_T and the transverse momenta of the two leading jets is required to be above 0.25.

A selection based on the boost-corrected contransverse mass [24], m_CT, is employed to further discriminate sbottom pair production from SM background processes.

For two identical decays of heavy particles into two visible particlesv1andv2, and into invisible particles, the contransverse mass [25] is defined as ð½E_Tðv₁Þ þ E_Tðv₂Þ²

½p_Tðv₁Þ p_Tðv₂Þ²Þ¹⁼². The boost-corrected contransverse mass conservatively corrects to account for boosts in the transverse plane due to initial state radiation and hence protects the expected endpoint in the distribution. In the case of sbottom pair production with ~b1 ! b~⁰₁, mCT is expected to have an endpoint at½mð~b1Þ² mð~⁰₁Þ²=mð~b1Þ.

To maximize the sensitivity across the ~b₁ ~⁰₁mass plane, three signal regions (SRs) are defined as a function of the m_CTthreshold, withm_CT> 100, 150 and 200 GeV.

Simulated event samples are used to aid in the descrip- tion of the background and to model the SUSY signal. Top quark pair and single top production are simulated with

MC@NLO[26], fixing the top quark mass at 172.5 GeV, and the next-to-leading-order (NLO) parton density function (PDF) setCTEQ6.6[27]. Samples ofW þ jets, Z þ jets with light and heavy flavor jets, and tt with additional b jets, ttb b, are generated with^ALPGEN[28] and PDF setCTEQ6L1

[29]. The fragmentation and hadronization for theALPGEN

and MC@NLO samples are performed with HERWIG [30], usingJIMMY[31] for the underlying event. Samples ofZtt andWtt are generated with ^MADGRAPH[32] interfaced to

PYTHIA[33]. Diboson (WW, WZ, ZZ) samples are generated withHERWIG. All background cross sections are normalized to the results of higher order calculations [34]. The signal samples are generated in the MSSM framework at fixed ~b₁ and ~⁰₁ masses, with BRð ~b₁! b~⁰₁Þ ¼ 100%, using the HERWIG++ [30] v2.4.2 Monte Carlo program.

The SUSY sample yields are normalized to the results of NLO calculations, as obtained using the PROSPINO [35]

v2.1 program. TheCTEQ6.6M[36] parameterization of the PDFs is used and the renormalization and factorization scales,_R;F¼ , are set to the sbottom mass. NLO cross sections vary between 12 pb and 0.05 pb for sbottom masses in the range 200–500 GeV. The MC samples are produced using parameters tuned as described in [37,38]

and are processed through a detector simulation [39] based on GEANT4 [40]. Effects of multiple proton-proton interactions per bunch crossing are included in the simulation.

The signal efficiencies vary across the ~b₁ ~⁰₁ mass plane. As an example, for the SR with mCT> 150 GeV the efficiencies are found to be between 1% and 6% as the sbottom mass increases from 200 GeV to 500 GeV, and between 6% and 2% as m ¼ mb~₁ m_~⁰

1 decreases. The sensitivity for m below 130 GeV is limited by the selection in m_CT and the trigger-driven requirements on the leading jetp_TandE^miss_T .

The main SM processes contributing to the background are top quark pair and single top production as well as associated production of W=Z bosons with heavy flavor jets—referred to as Z þ hfand W þ hf, respectively. In particular, the signal region with m_CT> 100 GeV is

(3)

dominated by semileptonictt events as a consequence of the m_CT endpoint at 135 GeV in top pair production, while the signal regions with mCT> 150, 200 GeV are dominated by the irreducible Z þ hf production with Z ! decay, followed by W þ hf production with W ! . Contributions from multijet, diboson, and associated production oftt with W, Z or additional b jets are subdominant. Noncollision backgrounds were found to be negligible.

The estimation of the main background processes is carried out by defining data control regions where each background component is dominant. The background estimate in each SR is derived through ‘‘transfer factors’’

equivalent to the ratio of expected event yields in the signal and control regions estimated using the MC simulation. The contributions from top and W þ hf production are estimated using a transfer factor from a control region where events have exactly one electron or muon, E^miss_T > 80 GeV, and at least two b jets with pT>

130 GeV and 50 GeV. The transverse mass of the (‘; E^miss_T ) system is required to be between 40 GeV and 100 GeV to select events containing W ! ‘. The contribution to this control region from other SM processes accounts for less than 10% of the total and is estimated from simulation. The Z þ hf contribution is estimated using a transfer factor from a control region where events have two opposite-sign same-flavor leptons (‘^þ‘), at least two b jets with p_T> 80 GeV and 50 GeV, and invariant mass of the two leptons m‘‘

between 81 GeV and 101 GeV (Z-mass interval). In addition, the transverse momentum of the (‘^þ, ‘, E^miss_T ) system is required to be greater than 50 GeV.

The contribution from top quark production in this control region accounts for about 50% of the total and is subtracted using a sideband estimate in two 40 GeV mass windows above and below the Z-mass interval.

The subdominant background contribution from dibo- sons,Ztt, Wtt, and ttb b is estimated using MC simulation and increases from 1% to 10% of the total SM prediction as the selection cut on m_CT increases from 100 GeV to 200 GeV. Finally, the residual multijet background is estimated using data. A sample of multijet events with large E^miss_T is constructed starting from multijet events with low E^miss_T and smearing the momenta of jets with response functions. This prediction is tuned in a multijet dominated control region where the requirement on minis inverted [41]. The contribution is found to be less than 5% across the SRs.

The total systematic uncertainty on the background expectations varies from 21% to 44%, increasing with themCTselection applied, and is dominated by the uncertainty due to finite data statistics in the control regions. The next dominant uncertainty on the SM estimates derives from the residual uncertainties on the theoretical modeling of the top background. It varies between 10% and 15%

depending on the SR and is evaluated using additional MC samples:ACERMC[42,43], for the impact of initial and final state radiation, PYTHIA and POWHEG [44] for choice of fragmentation model and generator. The residual uncertainties on the W þ hf and Z þ hf theoretical modeling account for less than 5% of the total uncertainty. Finally, the experimental uncertainties on theb-tagging efficiency and jet energy scale and resolution are also considered;

across the SRs they vary between 5% and 8% and between 6% and 9%, respectively.

For the SUSY signal processes, uncertainties on renormalization and factorization scales and on the PDF affect the theoretical cross section. PDF uncertainties are estimated using the CTEQ6.6M PDF error eigenvector set and are between 7% and 16% depending on the sbottom mass. The variation of renormalization and factorization scales by a factor of 2 changes the nominal signal cross section, _nom, by 15%, independently of mb~1. In the following, the cross sections calculated with scale set- tings 2 and =2 are referred to as min and max, respectively. The impact of detector-related uncertainties, such as the jet energy scale and b-tagging, on the signal event yields varies between 35% and 45% and is dominated by the uncertainties on the b-tagging efficiency.

TableI reports the observed number of events and the SM predictions before them_CTselection and for each SR.

Both transfer factor and MC estimates are given. The data are in good agreement with the SM background expectations within uncertainties in all cases. Figure1shows the measuredm_CTandE^miss_T distributions beforem_CTselection compared to the SM predictions. MC estimates are re- scaled to match the total integral predicted by the transfer factor estimates forZ þ hf and the sum of top and W þ hf, respectively. For illustrative purposes, the distributions expected for the MSSM scenario with sbottom and neutralino masses of 300 GeV and 100 GeV, respectively, are added to the SM predictions. The results are translated into 95% confidence-level (C.L.) upper limits on contributions from new physics using the CL_sprescription [45]. The SR with the best expected sensitivity at each point in parameter space is adopted as the nominal result. Figure2shows the observed and expected exclusion limits at 95% C.L.

in the ~b₁ ~⁰₁ mass plane, assuming BRð ~b₁ ! b~⁰₁Þ ¼ 100%. Systematic uncertainties are treated as nuisance parameters and their correlations are taken into account.

For the MSSM scenarios considered, the upper limit at 95% C.L. on the sbottom masses obtained in the most conservative hypothesis, min, is 390 GeV for m_~⁰

1¼ 0. The limit becomes 405 GeV for _nom and 420 GeV for max. Neutralino masses of 120 GeV are excluded for 275 < mb~₁< 350 GeV. The three signal regions are used to set limits on the effective cross section of new physics models,_eff, including the effects of experimental acceptance and efficiency. The observed (expected)

(4)

excluded values of _eff at 95% C.L. are 13.4 fb, 9.6 fb, and 5.6 fb (15.2 fb, 9.2 fb, and 4.7 fb), respectively, for mCT> 100, 150, and 200 GeV.

In summary, we report results of a search for sbottom pair production inpp collisions at ffiffiffi

ps

¼ 7 TeV, based on 2:05 fb¹ of ATLAS data. The events are selected with largeE^miss_T and two jets consistent with originating fromb quarks in the final state. The results are in agreement with SM predictions for backgrounds and translate into 95%

C.L. upper limits on sbottom and neutralino masses in a given MSSM scenario for which the exclusive decay b~1! b~⁰₁ is assumed. For neutralino masses below 60 GeV, sbottom masses up to 390 GeV are excluded, significantly extending previous results.

We thank CERN for the very successful operation of the LHC, as well as the support staff from our institutions without whom ATLAS could not be operated efficiently.

We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina;

YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWF, Austria;

ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC and CFI, Canada; CERN;

CONICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST, and NSFC, China;

COLCIENCIAS, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO CR, and VSC CR, Czech Republic; DNRF, DNSRC, and Lundbeck Foundation, Denmark; ARTEMIS, European Union;

IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DSM/IRFU, France; GNAS, Georgia; BMBF, DFG, HGF, MPG, and AvH Foundation, Germany; GSRT, Greece; ISF, MINERVA, GIF, DIP, and Benoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Morocco; FOM and NWO, Netherlands;

RCN, Norway; MNiSW, Poland; GRICES and FCT, Portugal; MERYS (MECTS), Romania; MES of Russia and ROSATOM, Russian Federation; JINR; MSTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MVZT, Slovenia;

DST/NRF, South Africa; MICINN, Spain; SRC and

[GeV]

mCT

0 100 200 300 400

Entries / 25 GeV

0 10 20 30 40 50 ATLAS

= 7 TeV s -1, L dt ~ 2.05 fb 2-jet exclusive

[GeV]

miss

ET

100 200 300 400 500

Data 2011 SM Total top, W+hf Z+hf Others

100 GeV 1 b300,0

FIG. 1 (color online). Measured m_CT (left) and E^miss_T (right) distributions before the mCT selection compared to the SM predictions (solid line) and SM+MSSM predictions (dashed lines). The dashed grey band represents the total systematic uncertainties.

[GeV]

b1

m

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

[GeV]m

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

350 ⁰

b+ 1

b1

production, b1

1- b

= 7 TeV s

-1, L dt = 2.05 fb ATLAS

Reference point forbidden

1 0

b b1

Observed Limit (95% C.L.) CLs

Expected Limit (95% C.L.) CLs

1 Expected Limit CLs

NLO scale unc.

CDF 2.65 fb-1

D0 5.2 fb-1

FIG. 2 (color online). Expected and observed exclusion limits, as well as1 variation on the expected limit, in the ~b₁ ~⁰₁ mass plane. The band around the observed limit delimited by the two dashed lines shows the effect of renormalization and factorization scale variation. The reference point indicated on the plane corresponds to the MSSM scenario with sbottom and neutralino masses of 300 GeV and 100 GeV, respectively.

Results are compared to previous exclusion limits from Tevatron experiments. Results from LEP cover the region with sbottom mass below 100 GeV.

TABLE I. Expected and measured number of events for an integrated luminosity of 2:05 fb¹. Z þ hf and the sum of top and W þ hf are estimated using a transfer factor estimate (TF). The column labeled as ‘‘Others’’ reports multijet background predictions as estimated with a jet smearing (JS) method, and subdominant SM backgrounds estimated from MC simulations. For comparison the numbers obtained using MC samples are shown in parenthesis. The total systematic uncertainties are also reported.

mCT Top,W þ hf TF (MC) Z þ hf TF (MC) Others MC þ JS Total SM Data

0 67 10 23 8 3:6 1:5 94 16 96

(60 25) (16 9) (80 35)

100 36 10 23 9 3:1 1:6 62 13 56

(34 16) (12 7) (49 25)

150 12 5 12 6 2:7 0:9 27 8 28

(13 8) (8:3 4:7) (24 13)

200 3:2 1:6 3:9 3:2 1:0 0:9 8:1 3:5 10

(4:1 3:4) (2:8 1:5) (8:0 4:9)

(5)

Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SER, SNSF, and Cantons of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; NSC, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, the Royal Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, United States of America. The crucial computing support from all WLCG partners is acknowledged gratefully, in particular, from CERN and the ATLAS Tier-1 facilities at TRIUMF (Canada), NDGF (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), CC- IN2P3 (France), KIT/GridKA (Germany), INFN-CNAF (Italy), NL-T1 (Netherlands), PIC (Spain), ASGC (Taiwan), RAL (UK), and BNL (USA), and in the Tier-2 facilities worldwide.

[1] Yu. A. Golfand and E. P. Likhtman, JETP Lett. 13, 323 (1971).

[2] A. Neveu and J. Schwarz,Nucl. Phys. B 31, 86 (1971). [3] A. Neveu and J. Schwarz,Phys. Rev. D 4, 1109 (1971). [4] P. Ramond,Phys. Rev. D 3, 2415 (1971).

[5] D. Volkov and V. Akulov,Phys. Lett. B 46, 109 (1973). [6] J. Wess and B. Zumino,Phys. Lett. B 49, 52 (1974). [7] J. Wess and B. Zumino,Nucl. Phys. B 70, 39 (1974). [8] P. Fayet,Phys. Lett. B 69, 489 (1977).

[9] G. R. Farrar and P. Fayet,Phys. Lett. B 76, 575 (1978). [10] T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration),Phys. Rev. Lett.

105, 081802 (2010).

[11] V. M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration),Phys. Lett. B 693, 95 (2010).

[12] LEP SUSY Working Group (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL), Notes LEPSUSYWG/01-03.1 and 04-02.1, http://lepsusy.web.cern.ch/lepsusy/Welcome.html.

[13] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), JINST 3, S08003 (2008).

[14] ATLAS uses a right-handed coordinate system with its origin at the nominal interaction point (IP) in the center of the detector and thez axis coinciding with the axis of the beam pipe. Thex axis points from the IP to the center of the LHC ring, and they axis points upward. Cylindrical coordinates (r, ) are used in the transverse plane, being the azimuthal angle around the beam pipe. The pseudor- apidity is defined in terms of the polar angle as

¼ lntanð=2Þ.

[15] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration),Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1630 (2011).

[16] ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2011-116. http://

cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1376384(2011).

[18] M. Cacciari, G. Salam, and G. Soyez, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2008) 063.

[19] M. Cacciari and G. Salam,Phys. Lett. B 641, 57 (2006). [20] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), arXiv:1112.6426

[Eur. Phys. J. C. (to be published)].

[21] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), arXiv:1110.3174 [Eur. Phys. J. C (to be published)].

[23] ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2011-102. http://

[24] G. Polesello and D. Tovey, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2010) 030.

[25] D. Tovey,J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2008) 034.

[26] S. Frixione and B. Webber,arXiv:hep-ph/0601192.

[27] P. Nadolsky et al., Phys. Rev. D 78, 013004 (2008).

[28] M. Mangano et al., J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2003) 001.

[29] J. Pumplin et al.,J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2002) 012.

[30] G. Corcella et al.,J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2001) 010.

[31] J. Butterworth, J. R. Forshaw, and M. Seymour,Z. Phys. C 72, 637 (1996).

[32] J. Alwall et al.,J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2011) 128.

[33] T. Sjo¨strand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands,J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2006) 026.

[34] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration),Phys. Lett. B 701, 398 (2011).

[35] W. Beenakker et al.,Nucl. Phys. B 515, 3 (1998). [36] D. Stump et al.,J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2003) 046.

[37] ATLAS Collaboration, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2010-014.http://

[38] ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2010-031 (2010).

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1277665(2010).

[40] S. Agostinelli et al. (GEANT4 Collaboration), Nucl.

Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 506, 250 (2003). [41] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), arXiv:1109.6572

[Phys. Lett. B (to be published)].

[42] B. Kersevan and E. Richter-Was,arXiv:hep-ph/0405247.

[43] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration),Phys. Lett. B 707, 459 (2012).

[44] S. Frixione et al., J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2007) 070.

[45] G. Cowan et al.,Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1554 (2011).

G. Aad,⁴⁷B. Abbott,¹¹⁰J. Abdallah,¹¹A. A. Abdelalim,⁴⁸A. Abdesselam,¹¹⁷O. Abdinov,¹⁰B. Abi,¹¹¹M. Abolins,⁸⁷ O. S. AbouZeid,¹⁵⁷H. Abramowicz,¹⁵²H. Abreu,¹¹⁴E. Acerbi,^88a,88bB. S. Acharya,^163a,163bL. Adamczyk,³⁷ D. L. Adams,²⁴T. N. Addy,⁵⁵J. Adelman,¹⁷⁴M. Aderholz,⁹⁸S. Adomeit,⁹⁷P. Adragna,⁷⁴T. Adye,¹²⁸S. Aefsky,²²

J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra,^123b,bM. Aharrouche,⁸⁰S. P. Ahlen,²¹F. Ahles,⁴⁷A. Ahmad,¹⁴⁷M. Ahsan,⁴⁰ G. Aielli,^132a,132bT. Akdogan,^18aT. P. A. A˚ kesson,⁷⁸G. Akimoto,¹⁵⁴A. V. Akimov,⁹³A. Akiyama,⁶⁶M. S. Alam,¹

M. A. Alam,⁷⁵J. Albert,¹⁶⁸S. Albrand,⁵⁴M. Aleksa,²⁹I. N. Aleksandrov,⁶⁴F. Alessandria,^88aC. Alexa,^25a G. Alexander,¹⁵²G. Alexandre,⁴⁸T. Alexopoulos,⁹M. Alhroob,²⁰M. Aliev,¹⁵G. Alimonti,^88aJ. Alison,¹¹⁹ M. Aliyev,¹⁰P. P. Allport,⁷²S. E. Allwood-Spiers,⁵²J. Almond,⁸¹A. Aloisio,^101a,101bR. Alon,¹⁷⁰A. Alonso,⁷⁸

B. Alvarez Gonzalez,⁸⁷M. G. Alviggi,^101a,101bK. Amako,⁶⁵P. Amaral,²⁹C. Amelung,²²V. V. Ammosov,¹²⁷

(6)

A. Amorim,^123a,cG. Amoro´s,¹⁶⁶N. Amram,¹⁵²C. Anastopoulos,²⁹L. S. Ancu,¹⁶N. Andari,¹¹⁴T. Andeen,³⁴ C. F. Anders,²⁰G. Anders,^57aK. J. Anderson,³⁰A. Andreazza,^88a,88bV. Andrei,^57aM-L. Andrieux,⁵⁴ X. S. Anduaga,⁶⁹A. Angerami,³⁴F. Anghinolfi,²⁹A. Anisenkov,¹⁰⁶N. Anjos,^123aA. Annovi,⁴⁶A. Antonaki,⁸ M. Antonelli,⁴⁶A. Antonov,⁹⁵J. Antos,^143bF. Anulli,^131aS. Aoun,⁸²L. Aperio Bella,⁴R. Apolle,^117,dG. Arabidze,⁸⁷ I. Aracena,¹⁴²Y. Arai,⁶⁵A. T. H. Arce,⁴⁴J. P. Archambault,²⁸S. Arfaoui,¹⁴⁷J-F. Arguin,¹⁴E. Arik,^18a,aM. Arik,^18a

A. J. Armbruster,⁸⁶O. Arnaez,⁸⁰C. Arnault,¹¹⁴A. Artamonov,⁹⁴G. Artoni,^131a,131bD. Arutinov,²⁰S. Asai,¹⁵⁴ R. Asfandiyarov,¹⁷¹S. Ask,²⁷B. A˚ sman,^145a,145bL. Asquith,⁵K. Assamagan,²⁴A. Astbury,¹⁶⁸A. Astvatsatourov,⁵¹

B. Aubert,⁴E. Auge,¹¹⁴K. Augsten,¹²⁶M. Aurousseau,^144aG. Avolio,¹⁶²R. Avramidou,⁹D. Axen,¹⁶⁷C. Ay,⁵³ G. Azuelos,^92,eY. Azuma,¹⁵⁴M. A. Baak,²⁹G. Baccaglioni,^88aC. Bacci,^133a,133bA. M. Bach,¹⁴H. Bachacou,¹³⁵ K. Bachas,²⁹G. Bachy,²⁹M. Backes,⁴⁸M. Backhaus,²⁰E. Badescu,^25aP. Bagnaia,^131a,131bS. Bahinipati,²Y. Bai,^32a

D. C. Bailey,¹⁵⁷T. Bain,¹⁵⁷J. T. Baines,¹²⁸O. K. Baker,¹⁷⁴M. D. Baker,²⁴S. Baker,⁷⁶E. Banas,³⁸P. Banerjee,⁹² Sw. Banerjee,¹⁷¹D. Banfi,²⁹A. Bangert,¹⁴⁹V. Bansal,¹⁶⁸H. S. Bansil,¹⁷L. Barak,¹⁷⁰S. P. Baranov,⁹³A. Barashkou,⁶⁴ A. Barbaro Galtieri,¹⁴T. Barber,⁴⁷E. L. Barberio,⁸⁵D. Barberis,^49a,49bM. Barbero,²⁰D. Y. Bardin,⁶⁴T. Barillari,⁹⁸ M. Barisonzi,¹⁷³T. Barklow,¹⁴²N. Barlow,²⁷B. M. Barnett,¹²⁸R. M. Barnett,¹⁴A. Baroncelli,^133aG. Barone,⁴⁸

A. J. Barr,¹¹⁷F. Barreiro,⁷⁹J. Barreiro Guimara˜es da Costa,⁵⁶P. Barrillon,¹¹⁴R. Bartoldus,¹⁴²A. E. Barton,⁷⁰ V. Bartsch,¹⁴⁸R. L. Bates,⁵²L. Batkova,^143aJ. R. Batley,²⁷A. Battaglia,¹⁶M. Battistin,²⁹F. Bauer,¹³⁵H. S. Bawa,^142,f

S. Beale,⁹⁷B. Beare,¹⁵⁷T. Beau,⁷⁷P. H. Beauchemin,¹⁶⁰R. Beccherle,^49aP. Bechtle,²⁰H. P. Beck,¹⁶S. Becker,⁹⁷ M. Beckingham,¹³⁷K. H. Becks,¹⁷³A. J. Beddall,^18cA. Beddall,^18cS. Bedikian,¹⁷⁴V. A. Bednyakov,⁶⁴C. P. Bee,⁸²

M. Begel,²⁴S. Behar Harpaz,¹⁵¹P. K. Behera,⁶²M. Beimforde,⁹⁸C. Belanger-Champagne,⁸⁴P. J. Bell,⁴⁸ W. H. Bell,⁴⁸G. Bella,¹⁵²L. Bellagamba,^19aF. Bellina,²⁹M. Bellomo,²⁹A. Belloni,⁵⁶O. Beloborodova,^106,g K. Belotskiy,⁹⁵O. Beltramello,²⁹S. Ben Ami,¹⁵¹O. Benary,¹⁵²D. Benchekroun,^134aC. Benchouk,⁸²M. Bendel,⁸⁰ N. Benekos,¹⁶⁴Y. Benhammou,¹⁵²E. Benhar Noccioli,⁴⁸J. A. Benitez Garcia,^158bD. P. Benjamin,⁴⁴M. Benoit,¹¹⁴

J. R. Bensinger,²²K. Benslama,¹²⁹S. Bentvelsen,¹⁰⁴D. Berge,²⁹E. Bergeaas Kuutmann,⁴¹N. Berger,⁴ F. Berghaus,¹⁶⁸E. Berglund,¹⁰⁴J. Beringer,¹⁴P. Bernat,⁷⁶R. Bernhard,⁴⁷C. Bernius,²⁴T. Berry,⁷⁵C. Bertella,⁸² A. Bertin,^19a,19bF. Bertinelli,²⁹F. Bertolucci,^121a,121bM. I. Besana,^88a,88bN. Besson,¹³⁵S. Bethke,⁹⁸W. Bhimji,⁴⁵

R. M. Bianchi,²⁹M. Bianco,^71a,71bO. Biebel,⁹⁷S. P. Bieniek,⁷⁶K. Bierwagen,⁵³J. Biesiada,¹⁴M. Biglietti,^133a H. Bilokon,⁴⁶M. Bindi,^19a,19bS. Binet,¹¹⁴A. Bingul,^18cC. Bini,^131a,131bC. Biscarat,¹⁷⁶U. Bitenc,⁴⁷K. M. Black,²¹

R. E. Blair,⁵J.-B. Blanchard,¹¹⁴G. Blanchot,²⁹T. Blazek,^143aC. Blocker,²²J. Blocki,³⁸A. Blondel,⁴⁸W. Blum,⁸⁰ U. Blumenschein,⁵³G. J. Bobbink,¹⁰⁴V. B. Bobrovnikov,¹⁰⁶S. S. Bocchetta,⁷⁸A. Bocci,⁴⁴C. R. Boddy,¹¹⁷ M. Boehler,⁴¹J. Boek,¹⁷³N. Boelaert,³⁵S. Bo¨ser,⁷⁶J. A. Bogaerts,²⁹A. Bogdanchikov,¹⁰⁶A. Bogouch,^89,a

C. Bohm,^145aV. Boisvert,⁷⁵T. Bold,³⁷V. Boldea,^25aN. M. Bolnet,¹³⁵M. Bona,⁷⁴V. G. Bondarenko,⁹⁵ M. Bondioli,¹⁶²M. Boonekamp,¹³⁵G. Boorman,⁷⁵C. N. Booth,¹³⁸S. Bordoni,⁷⁷C. Borer,¹⁶A. Borisov,¹²⁷ G. Borissov,⁷⁰I. Borjanovic,^12aS. Borroni,⁸⁶K. Bos,¹⁰⁴D. Boscherini,^19aM. Bosman,¹¹H. Boterenbrood,¹⁰⁴ D. Botterill,¹²⁸J. Bouchami,⁹²J. Boudreau,¹²²E. V. Bouhova-Thacker,⁷⁰D. Boumediene,³³C. Bourdarios,¹¹⁴ N. Bousson,⁸²A. Boveia,³⁰J. Boyd,²⁹I. R. Boyko,⁶⁴N. I. Bozhko,¹²⁷I. Bozovic-Jelisavcic,^12bJ. Bracinik,¹⁷ A. Braem,²⁹P. Branchini,^133aG. W. Brandenburg,⁵⁶A. Brandt,⁷G. Brandt,¹¹⁷O. Brandt,⁵³U. Bratzler,¹⁵⁵B. Brau,⁸³

J. E. Brau,¹¹³H. M. Braun,¹⁷³B. Brelier,¹⁵⁷J. Bremer,²⁹R. Brenner,¹⁶⁵S. Bressler,¹⁷⁰D. Breton,¹¹⁴D. Britton,⁵² F. M. Brochu,²⁷I. Brock,²⁰R. Brock,⁸⁷T. J. Brodbeck,⁷⁰E. Brodet,¹⁵²F. Broggi,^88aC. Bromberg,⁸⁷J. Bronner,⁹⁸

G. Brooijmans,³⁴W. K. Brooks,^31bG. Brown,⁸¹H. Brown,⁷P. A. Bruckman de Renstrom,³⁸D. Bruncko,^143b R. Bruneliere,⁴⁷S. Brunet,⁶⁰A. Bruni,^19aG. Bruni,^19aM. Bruschi,^19aT. Buanes,¹³Q. Buat,⁵⁴F. Bucci,⁴⁸

J. Buchanan,¹¹⁷N. J. Buchanan,²P. Buchholz,¹⁴⁰R. M. Buckingham,¹¹⁷A. G. Buckley,⁴⁵S. I. Buda,^25a I. A. Budagov,⁶⁴B. Budick,¹⁰⁷V. Bu¨scher,⁸⁰L. Bugge,¹¹⁶O. Bulekov,⁹⁵M. Bunse,⁴²T. Buran,¹¹⁶H. Burckhart,²⁹

S. Burdin,⁷²T. Burgess,¹³S. Burke,¹²⁸E. Busato,³³P. Bussey,⁵²C. P. Buszello,¹⁶⁵F. Butin,²⁹B. Butler,¹⁴² J. M. Butler,²¹C. M. Buttar,⁵²J. M. Butterworth,⁷⁶W. Buttinger,²⁷S. Cabrera Urba´n,¹⁶⁶D. Caforio,^19a,19bO. Cakir,^3a P. Calafiura,¹⁴G. Calderini,⁷⁷P. Calfayan,⁹⁷R. Calkins,¹⁰⁵L. P. Caloba,^23aR. Caloi,^131a,131bD. Calvet,³³S. Calvet,³³ R. Camacho Toro,³³P. Camarri,^132a,132bM. Cambiaghi,^118a,118bD. Cameron,¹¹⁶L. M. Caminada,¹⁴S. Campana,²⁹

M. Campanelli,⁷⁶V. Canale,^101a,101bF. Canelli,^30,hA. Canepa,^158aJ. Cantero,⁷⁹L. Capasso,^101a,101b M. D. M. Capeans Garrido,²⁹I. Caprini,^25aM. Caprini,^25aD. Capriotti,⁹⁸M. Capua,^36a,36bR. Caputo,⁸⁰ C. Caramarcu,²⁴R. Cardarelli,^132aT. Carli,²⁹G. Carlino,^101aL. Carminati,^88a,88bB. Caron,⁸⁴S. Caron,¹⁰³

G. D. Carrillo Montoya,¹⁷¹A. A. Carter,⁷⁴J. R. Carter,²⁷J. Carvalho,^123a,iD. Casadei,¹⁰⁷M. P. Casado,¹¹ M. Cascella,^121a,121bC. Caso,^49a,49b,aA. M. Castaneda Hernandez,¹⁷¹E. Castaneda-Miranda,¹⁷¹

(7)

V. Castillo Gimenez,¹⁶⁶N. F. Castro,^123aG. Cataldi,^71aF. Cataneo,²⁹A. Catinaccio,²⁹J. R. Catmore,²⁹A. Cattai,²⁹ G. Cattani,^132a,132bS. Caughron,⁸⁷D. Cauz,^163a,163cP. Cavalleri,⁷⁷D. Cavalli,^88aM. Cavalli-Sforza,¹¹ V. Cavasinni,^121a,121bF. Ceradini,^133a,133bA. S. Cerqueira,^23bA. Cerri,²⁹L. Cerrito,⁷⁴F. Cerutti,⁴⁶S. A. Cetin,^18b F. Cevenini,^101a,101bA. Chafaq,^134aD. Chakraborty,¹⁰⁵K. Chan,²B. Chapleau,⁸⁴J. D. Chapman,²⁷J. W. Chapman,⁸⁶

E. Chareyre,⁷⁷D. G. Charlton,¹⁷V. Chavda,⁸¹C. A. Chavez Barajas,²⁹S. Cheatham,⁸⁴S. Chekanov,⁵ S. V. Chekulaev,^158aG. A. Chelkov,⁶⁴M. A. Chelstowska,¹⁰³C. Chen,⁶³H. Chen,²⁴S. Chen,^32cT. Chen,^32c X. Chen,¹⁷¹S. Cheng,^32aA. Cheplakov,⁶⁴V. F. Chepurnov,⁶⁴R. Cherkaoui El Moursli,^134eV. Chernyatin,²⁴E. Cheu,⁶

S. L. Cheung,¹⁵⁷L. Chevalier,¹³⁵G. Chiefari,^101a,101bL. Chikovani,^50aJ. T. Childers,²⁹A. Chilingarov,⁷⁰ G. Chiodini,^71aM. V. Chizhov,⁶⁴G. Choudalakis,³⁰S. Chouridou,¹³⁶I. A. Christidi,⁷⁶A. Christov,⁴⁷ D. Chromek-Burckhart,²⁹M. L. Chu,¹⁵⁰J. Chudoba,¹²⁴G. Ciapetti,^131a,131bK. Ciba,³⁷A. K. Ciftci,^3aR. Ciftci,^3a D. Cinca,³³V. Cindro,⁷³M. D. Ciobotaru,¹⁶²C. Ciocca,^19aA. Ciocio,¹⁴M. Cirilli,⁸⁶M. Citterio,^88aM. Ciubancan,^25a

A. Clark,⁴⁸P. J. Clark,⁴⁵W. Cleland,¹²²J. C. Clemens,⁸²B. Clement,⁵⁴C. Clement,^145a,145bR. W. Clifft,¹²⁸ Y. Coadou,⁸²M. Cobal,^163a,163cA. Coccaro,¹⁷¹J. Cochran,⁶³P. Coe,¹¹⁷J. G. Cogan,¹⁴²J. Coggeshall,¹⁶⁴

E. Cogneras,¹⁷⁶J. Colas,⁴A. P. Colijn,¹⁰⁴N. J. Collins,¹⁷C. Collins-Tooth,⁵²J. Collot,⁵⁴G. Colon,⁸³ P. Conde Muin˜o,^123aE. Coniavitis,¹¹⁷M. C. Conidi,¹¹M. Consonni,¹⁰³V. Consorti,⁴⁷S. Constantinescu,^25a C. Conta,^118a,118bF. Conventi,^101a,jJ. Cook,²⁹M. Cooke,¹⁴B. D. Cooper,⁷⁶A. M. Cooper-Sarkar,¹¹⁷K. Copic,¹⁴ T. Cornelissen,¹⁷³M. Corradi,^19aF. Corriveau,^84,kA. Cortes-Gonzalez,¹⁶⁴G. Cortiana,⁹⁸G. Costa,^88aM. J. Costa,¹⁶⁶ D. Costanzo,¹³⁸T. Costin,³⁰D. Coˆte´,²⁹R. Coura Torres,^23aL. Courneyea,¹⁶⁸G. Cowan,⁷⁵C. Cowden,²⁷B. E. Cox,⁸¹

K. Cranmer,¹⁰⁷F. Crescioli,^121a,121bM. Cristinziani,²⁰G. Crosetti,^36a,36bR. Crupi,^71a,71bS. Cre´pe´-Renaudin,⁵⁴ C.-M. Cuciuc,^25aC. Cuenca Almenar,¹⁷⁴T. Cuhadar Donszelmann,¹³⁸M. Curatolo,⁴⁶C. J. Curtis,¹⁷C. Cuthbert,¹⁴⁹ P. Cwetanski,⁶⁰H. Czirr,¹⁴⁰P. Czodrowski,⁴³Z. Czyczula,¹⁷⁴S. D’Auria,⁵²M. D’Onofrio,⁷²A. D’Orazio,^131a,131b

P. V. M. Da Silva,^23aC. Da Via,⁸¹W. Dabrowski,³⁷T. Dai,⁸⁶C. Dallapiccola,⁸³M. Dam,³⁵M. Dameri,^49a,49b D. S. Damiani,¹³⁶H. O. Danielsson,²⁹D. Dannheim,⁹⁸V. Dao,⁴⁸G. Darbo,^49aG. L. Darlea,^25bC. Daum,¹⁰⁴

W. Davey,²⁰T. Davidek,¹²⁵N. Davidson,⁸⁵R. Davidson,⁷⁰E. Davies,^117,dM. Davies,⁹²A. R. Davison,⁷⁶ Y. Davygora,^57aE. Dawe,¹⁴¹I. Dawson,¹³⁸J. W. Dawson,^5,aR. K. Daya-Ishmukhametova,²²K. De,⁷ R. de Asmundis,^101aS. De Castro,^19a,19bP. E. De Castro Faria Salgado,²⁴S. De Cecco,⁷⁷J. de Graat,⁹⁷ N. De Groot,¹⁰³P. de Jong,¹⁰⁴C. De La Taille,¹¹⁴H. De la Torre,⁷⁹B. De Lotto,^163a,163cL. de Mora,⁷⁰L. De Nooij,¹⁰⁴

D. De Pedis,^131aA. De Salvo,^131aU. De Sanctis,^163a,163cA. De Santo,¹⁴⁸J. B. De Vivie De Regie,¹¹⁴S. Dean,⁷⁶ W. J. Dearnaley,⁷⁰R. Debbe,²⁴C. Debenedetti,⁴⁵D. V. Dedovich,⁶⁴J. Degenhardt,¹¹⁹M. Dehchar,¹¹⁷ C. Del Papa,^163a,163cJ. Del Peso,⁷⁹T. Del Prete,^121a,121bT. Delemontex,⁵⁴M. Deliyergiyev,⁷³A. Dell’Acqua,²⁹

L. Dell’Asta,²¹M. Della Pietra,^101a,jD. della Volpe,^101a,101bM. Delmastro,⁴N. Delruelle,²⁹P. A. Delsart,⁵⁴ C. Deluca,¹⁴⁷S. Demers,¹⁷⁴M. Demichev,⁶⁴B. Demirkoz,^11,lJ. Deng,¹⁶²S. P. Denisov,¹²⁷D. Derendarz,³⁸ J. E. Derkaoui,^134dF. Derue,⁷⁷P. Dervan,⁷²K. Desch,²⁰E. Devetak,¹⁴⁷P. O. Deviveiros,¹⁰⁴A. Dewhurst,¹²⁸ B. DeWilde,¹⁴⁷S. Dhaliwal,¹⁵⁷R. Dhullipudi,^24,mA. Di Ciaccio,^132a,132bL. Di Ciaccio,⁴A. Di Girolamo,²⁹ B. Di Girolamo,²⁹S. Di Luise,^133a,133bA. Di Mattia,¹⁷¹B. Di Micco,²⁹R. Di Nardo,⁴⁶A. Di Simone,^132a,132b

R. Di Sipio,^19a,19bM. A. Diaz,^31aF. Diblen,^18cE. B. Diehl,⁸⁶J. Dietrich,⁴¹T. A. Dietzsch,^57aS. Diglio,⁸⁵ K. Dindar Yagci,³⁹J. Dingfelder,²⁰C. Dionisi,^131a,131bP. Dita,^25aS. Dita,^25aF. Dittus,²⁹F. Djama,⁸²T. Djobava,^50b

M. A. B. do Vale,^23cA. Do Valle Wemans,^123aT. K. O. Doan,⁴M. Dobbs,⁸⁴R. Dobinson,^29,aD. Dobos,²⁹ E. Dobson,^29,nJ. Dodd,³⁴C. Doglioni,⁴⁸T. Doherty,⁵²Y. Doi,^65,aJ. Dolejsi,¹²⁵I. Dolenc,⁷³Z. Dolezal,¹²⁵ B. A. Dolgoshein,^95,aT. Dohmae,¹⁵⁴M. Donadelli,^23dM. Donega,¹¹⁹J. Donini,³³J. Dopke,²⁹A. Doria,^101a A. Dos Anjos,¹⁷¹M. Dosil,¹¹A. Dotti,^121a,121bM. T. Dova,⁶⁹J. D. Dowell,¹⁷A. D. Doxiadis,¹⁰⁴A. T. Doyle,⁵² Z. Drasal,¹²⁵J. Drees,¹⁷³N. Dressnandt,¹¹⁹H. Drevermann,²⁹C. Driouichi,³⁵M. Dris,⁹J. Dubbert,⁹⁸S. Dube,¹⁴

E. Duchovni,¹⁷⁰G. Duckeck,⁹⁷A. Dudarev,²⁹F. Dudziak,⁶³M. Du¨hrssen,²⁹I. P. Duerdoth,⁸¹L. Duflot,¹¹⁴ M-A. Dufour,⁸⁴M. Dunford,²⁹H. Duran Yildiz,^3aR. Duxfield,¹³⁸M. Dwuznik,³⁷F. Dydak,²⁹M. Du¨ren,⁵¹ W. L. Ebenstein,⁴⁴J. Ebke,⁹⁷S. Eckweiler,⁸⁰K. Edmonds,⁸⁰C. A. Edwards,⁷⁵N. C. Edwards,⁵²W. Ehrenfeld,⁴¹ T. Ehrich,⁹⁸T. Eifert,¹⁴²G. Eigen,¹³K. Einsweiler,¹⁴E. Eisenhandler,⁷⁴T. Ekelof,¹⁶⁵M. El Kacimi,^134cM. Ellert,¹⁶⁵ S. Elles,⁴F. Ellinghaus,⁸⁰K. Ellis,⁷⁴N. Ellis,²⁹J. Elmsheuser,⁹⁷M. Elsing,²⁹D. Emeliyanov,¹²⁸R. Engelmann,¹⁴⁷ A. Engl,⁹⁷B. Epp,⁶¹A. Eppig,⁸⁶J. Erdmann,⁵³A. Ereditato,¹⁶D. Eriksson,^145aJ. Ernst,¹M. Ernst,²⁴J. Ernwein,¹³⁵ D. Errede,¹⁶⁴S. Errede,¹⁶⁴E. Ertel,⁸⁰M. Escalier,¹¹⁴C. Escobar,¹²²X. Espinal Curull,¹¹B. Esposito,⁴⁶F. Etienne,⁸² A. I. Etienvre,¹³⁵E. Etzion,¹⁵²D. Evangelakou,⁵³H. Evans,⁶⁰L. Fabbri,^19a,19bC. Fabre,²⁹R. M. Fakhrutdinov,¹²⁷

S. Falciano,^131aY. Fang,¹⁷¹M. Fanti,^88a,88bA. Farbin,⁷A. Farilla,^133aJ. Farley,¹⁴⁷T. Farooque,¹⁵⁷